Wash. Post: Cong. "Democrats in particular" have high disapproval -- in fact, disapproval of GOP much higher
An article in the July 25 edition of The Washington Post by staff writer Peter Baker asserted that despite President Bush's low approval numbers, "the president's team takes solace from the fact that the public holds Congress in low esteem too," adding that "[m]ore than half" of respondents in a Washington Post/ABC News poll taken July 18-21 "disapproved of Congress generally, and Democrats in particular." In fact, according to the Post/ABC poll, congressional Republicans have a substantially higher disapproval rating than congressional Democrats.
The Post/ABC poll found approval of Congress at 37 percent, with 60 percent disapproving, but it also found that congressional Republicans had a significantly higher disapproval rating than Democrats. Sixty-four percent of respondents disapproved "of the way the Republicans in Congress are doing their job," compared with 51 percent who disapproved of the Democrats' performance; 34 percent approved of congressional Republicans, while 46 percent approved of congressional Democrats.
From Baker's July 25 article in The Washington Post:
Bush advisers clutch at Truman as if he were a political life preserver. If Bush has experienced a similar collapse in public support while in office, they hope he will enjoy the same post-presidential reassessment that has made Truman look far better today than in his time. A 2004 poll by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner found that 58 percent of Americans viewed Truman favorably.
And the president's team takes solace in the fact that the public holds Congress in low esteem, too. More than half disapproved of Congress generally, and Democrats in particular, in the latest Post-ABC survey, though their ratings were still better than Bush's.
The entire article is a stinging summation of Bush's unpopularity and low approval numbers, if you read it and not just focus on this one sentence highlighted here, but rather view it in context of the whole piece. The writer could have included the Republicans in Congress and their lower ratings admittedly, but the gist of it went to Bush and perhaps the one glimmer of good news for him, the dismal ratings for Congress too.
Sorry Tommy, but that doesn't cut it. They misinformed that the Democrats numbers "in particular" were poor. When in fact, it was Republican's numbers in particular which were worse.
Maybe some of the old timers on this site can explain the contradiction and confusion in Tommy's post.
MMfA's point is not that everything in this report is wrong. Their point is that one part of their report is inaccurate and distorts reality.
How is it that Tommy doesn't understand this if he's been around here for a long time?
How is it that Tommy gets the street cred he has on this site if he either can't or won't understand why MMfA posted this?
On the "about MMfA" page, it says "Media Matters for America put in place, for the first time, the means to systematically monitor a cross section of print, broadcast, cable, radio, and Internet media outlets for conservative misinformation — news or commentary that is not accurate, reliable, or credible and that forwards the conservative agenda — every day, in real time."
This post by MMfA highlights a part of this reporting that is news that is not accurate and that forwards the conservative agenda.
Why doesn't Tommy get this?
He's deliberately obtuse like the vast majority of republicans we see on here. Sadly it's the truth especially since he is the one who usually posts different variations of "Why is this here?".
A better question is...Why is Tommy still allowed here? A liberal on most right-wing boards has a shorter life than an adult mayfly. MMFA shows a relatively incredible amount of tolerance.
The BEST question remains your handle: What Happened To Gannon?
Insofar as tolerating Tommy, we try, in hopes that salvation truly is inherent in believing.
I don't mind Tommy being here, but it is true that most right-wing sites wont even allow liberals to post. So much for tolerance.
The misleading sentence in this article about Congressional popularity is so egregious and incorrect that the only explanation for it is deliberate bias. The "in particular" applies to Republicans, not Democrats, and how this mistake was made is quite suggestive.
How times change. President Kennedy 's words still ring in my ear " we shall land a man on the moon in this decade.........." . Now with Mr Bush, the politico's seem to find solace in who is at the deeper bottom. All this with a world wide audience and the internet.
And disapproval of bush is historic.
And disapproval of Congress is directly related to their unwillingness to stand up to Bush. If the House starts impeachment proceedings and cuts off funding to Bush's no bid military contractors you'll see the Congress approval shoot into the stratosphere.
Even considering that, as far as disapproval of congress goes, the devil is in the details!
Don't expect them to bother. AIPAC is paying them big bucks to keep this little occupation going. Must have US troops parked next to Iran for Israel's plan, ya know.
Technically the sentence is correct. The gist of the sentence is this: "More than half disapproved of ... Democrats ... in the latest Post-ABC survey"
There is a false impression making the rounds of the mainstream media -- a misleading meme, you might say -- from the WSJ's John Fund: "Given that the Democratic Congress now boasts approval ratings even below those of President Bush ..." ("In Fairness, Shut Up," Political Diary, opinionjournal.com, 6/25/07) to CNN's Wolf Blitzer (see his "Situation Room" interview of DNC Chairman Howard Dean, 6/23/07) to MSNBC's Keith Olbermann on "Countdown" just last night (he and Richard Wolff agreed there was no difference between the low approval ratings of Republicans and Democrats in Congress). But in reality, there is no truth to the idea that the Democrats in Congress have a lower approval rating than does President Bush. And it is the unpopularity of the REPUBLICANS in congress (thanks mostly to the immigration issue, I suspect) that has dragged down the OVERALL approval rating of the "Democratic-led" Congress. As a matter of fact, a CNN/ORC poll (6/22-24/07) found approval for "what Democratic leaders in the House and Senate have done so far this year" at 42% (with disapproval at 49%). But in the same poll, 57% of respondents said it was good that the Democratic Party is in control of Congress, and the Democratic Party had a postiverating of 51% (38% negative). Meanwhile, the approval ratings for the Republican Party were almost the reverse at 36% positive, 53% negative.
To repeat: any statement, suggestion or implication that the Democrats in Congress are less popular than Presidet Bush is simply FALSE. And any pundit, reporter or TV news anchor who mindlessly or carelessly -- or simply uncritically -- writes or says or reports otherwise is MISLEADING THE PUBLIC, intentionally or not.
I don't know why MMFA doesn't post the contact webpage for Peter Baker, in addition to the Washington Post main contact info page.
Peter Baker
Yikes! I guess that neocon penchant for comparing Saint George and his minions to Clinton will have to be abandoned as a standard they can no longer live up to, and the Clinton side of the equation will be replaced by an unpopular congress.
How long before that one becomes untenable, and Lindsay Lohan becomes their yardstick of honor?
Exactly when did the Washington Post morph into the Washington Times???
when katherine graham died.
This is something I have long wondered. Their OP/ED page has yet to apologize for all the name-calling it did to all of us who opposed the war before it started, back when the WashPo was in a pro-war frenzy. Come to think of it, they've never really backed down on their support for the war.